General News

Facebook caused a huge outcry back in June when it revealed it had manipulated the news feeds of over half a million users as part of a psychological study to examine how emotions spread on social media.

The response was intense (to say the least), but Facebook is far from the only Internet company to treat its users like lab rats. OkCupid fessed up to conducting studies on its members via a blog entry posted on July 28. And they weren't exactly apologetic about it.

“We noticed recently that people didn’t like it when Facebook 'experimented' with their news feed,” the entry reads. “Even the FTC is getting involved. But guess what, everybody: if you use the Internet, you’re the subject of hundreds of experiments at any given time, on every site. That’s how websites work.”

Admittedly, they have a point. No matter how popular or successful OkCupid is, there are always improvements to be made and the only way to discover those improvements is to conduct experiments. Or, in the site’s own words, “OkCupid doesn’t really know what it’s doing. Neither does any other website. It’s not like people have been building these things for very long, or you can go look up a blueprint or something. Most ideas are bad. Even good ideas could be better. Experiments are how you sort all this out.”

In this case, the experiment told users they were more compatible than they really were to test the power of suggestion. Typically, among users who were given a 30% compatibility rating by OkCupid, a single message from one to another turned into a conversation just 10% of the time. But, if OkCupid told users with low compatibility that their compatibility score was 90%, the odds of having a conversation jumped to 17%.

The experiment found the same results in the opposite direction. When users with 90% compatibility were told their score was only 30%, the likelihood of a conversation dropped from 20% to 16%. OkCupid isn’t at all surprised that users take the compatibility rating so seriously – “after all,” notes the blog post, “that’s what the site teaches you to do.”

Then OkCupid took a step further. The question became “Does the displayed match percentage cause more than just that first message – does the mere suggestion cause people to actually like each other?”

As far as this data goes, the answer is yes. When OkCupid tells people they’re a good match, they act as if they are, even if they should be wrong for each other - which means that at the end of the day, the myth of compatibility may be just as powerful as the truth.

If you’ve been anywhere near a news source lately, you probably heard about Facebook’s big news feed experiment. The social network manipulated the news feeds of hundreds of thousands of users to see if the emotion they absorbed through reading content on their news feeds impacted the emotion they later displayed in their own posts. People were, unsurprisingly, not too psyched at the revelation that Facebook had toyed with their emotions.

Shortly afterwards OkCupid revealed that it, too, has experimented on users, and the furor started again. In their most recent experiment, OkCupid told users — falsely — that they’re compatible in order to spark more conversations. As a result, OkCupid found that perceived compatibility is just as effective as real compatibility.

Reactions to both experiments have been mixed. Some have said that OkCupid’s testing is less controversial than Facebook’s. Others have called the OkCupid experiment worse than Facebook’s. What everyone seems to agree on is that they’re not quite sure if they should be upset or not. On one hand, lying to customers seems like an obvious faux-pas. But on the other hand, isn’t that just how the Internet works?

As Josh Constine noted in a TechCrunch post, by using services like Google, Twitter, LinkedIn and yes, Facebook, we agree to be part of experiments that change the way we experience the sites. The experiments are called A/B tests, and companies use them to figure how to encourage users to visit a site longer or click more things. This is nothing new.

However, there may be some room for concern. In academia, research involving human subjects is severely limited and carefully monitored by review boards to ensure that it is not deceptive and harm is minimized. Where companies are concerned, there’s no such thing as a review board. It’s up to the companies themselves to abide by the core principles of ethical research.

So how should you feel about Facebook’s and OkCupid’s experiments?

Any way you want. Unlike those two companies, I’m not here to manipulate into doing or feeling anything.

But if asked to take a stand, I’d have to put myself pro-OkCupid and less-than-convinced about Facebook. Facebook deliberately tried to change users’ emotions for the worse by manipulating content in their feeds, all without their consent. It’s hard to get behind that, no matter how much you enjoy psychological studies. For OkCupid, I’m willing to give a pass. At the end of the day, those kinds of experiments are just OkCupid doing its job. Without testing, OkCupid would never improve its ability to match users – and that’s the whole reason we’re there in the first place.

Yes, you read that correctly. When you friends ask how you met the love of your life, your answer could begin with “Well, I spit in a tube, and…”

It’s probably not the romantic origin story you were expecting, but it’s certainly one of the most high tech. SingldOut.com claims to be the first online dating site to make matches based on your DNA (I don't think it is as the now defunct Scientific Match tried DNA matching back in 2008). The site is partnered with Instant Chemistry, a service that uses psychology and DNA testing to determine "biological compatibility" in a long-term relationship. Here’s how it works:

• Sign up for a SingldOut membership
• Get an Instant Chemistry DNA kit in the mail
• Spit into the enclosed tube
• Pack it up in the included prepaid envelope, then ship it back to Instant Chemistry
• Take a psychological assessment online
• Receive your results, which are posted to your online dating profile, a week later

Instant Chemstiry tests two "markers" in order to determine compatibility. The first is the serotonin uptake transporter, which is involved in how people react to positive and negative emotions. The second are the genes influencing your immune system.

Research shows there is a strong correlation between people in long-term relationships having different (but complementary) versions of the serotonin and immune system genes, but the science is still in its infancy. SingldOut is “looking at a very small number of genes, and you simply cannot extrapolate a prediction from those genes to long-term compatibility," says Mike Dougherty, director of education for the American Society of Human Genetics. It’s impossible to ignore the other genes and environmental factors that come into play during the complex process of attraction.

These days DNA seems to be the pinnacle of science. There are diets designed around your DNA. Crimes are solved via DNA. You can screen for diseases using your DNA. You can learn about your ancestors by your DNA. It’s no surprise that a company is now attempting to bring dating by DNA to the masses, though even they point out that it’s a stretch to consider DNA a top factor in the choice of a partner.

Is it a conceptually interesting prospect? Yes. Is it effective? Perhaps, when used in conjunction with more traditional methods. Is it deterministic? Absolutely not. Not yet anyway , but aren’t you a least a little bit intrigued at the idea of living in a sci-fi future in which we can be matched with perfect partners based on our biology?

Membership to SingldOut is priced at $199 for three months, $249 for six months or $299 for 12 months. 

When it comes to mobile dating, every company has just one goal right now: beat Tinder. The latest app to attempt the feat is Happn, a new mobile dating service from Fabien Cohen, Didier Rappaport, and Antony Cohen.

Like most mobile dating apps, Happn uses your phone's location to show you potential matches. Every time you cross someone's path, that person’s profile is added to the top of your feed. It works much like the app Highlight, but for your love life. The goal is to save the world from missed connections, augment coincidence, and boost luck. That cutie you keep running into in your local coffee shop but never say hi to? Happn is where you connect.

When you open the app, you're presented with the grid view of all your latest encounters. Scroll down if you want to go further back in time. Tap a profile to access all the normal features you expect from a dating app. Indicate that you like someone in order to discover if there is mutual interest, then begin a conversation. Note that, unlike Tinder, users can chat with anyone using credits, even if there is no match.

“The app tells you the story of your life through your movements,” co-founder, CEO, and former Dailymotion COO Didier Rappaport told TechCrunch. “The newsfeed personalization is really important. It’s based on real life and this is key. It could be people you’ve crossed paths with and that you really wanted to see on Happn, it could also be someone you came across 44 times because you live in the same area.”

The company is still relatively small, but last year French VC firm Alven Capital invested a significant amount of money in a seed round. Happn is now available in three countries and is gaining traction. Since its official launch in March 2014, around 200,000 people have installed the app. Happn has 40,000 daily active users in Paris, 10,000 daily active users in London, and in Berlin, after only one month, between 7000 and 10,000 daily active users.

The numbers are small compared to the massive competition Happn faces, but they’re strong for a company in such early stages. And now that its user base is building, Happn stands to hit it big. The company plans to launch its app in every major European city over the course of the next eight months, and maybe even in a big city outside Europe.

If you’ve heard Brandon Wade’s name lately, it’s likely because he’s the CEO of SeekingArrangement.com and SA is currently embroiled in quite the scandal. Earlier this summer, the Web was rocked with the news that Google executive Forrest Hayes died of a fatal dose of heroin, allegedly injected by a prostitute named Alix Tichelman while the two were on a yacht.

Tichelman and Hayes met on SeekingArrangement.com, the infamous Las Vegas-based sugar daddy dating site. The news has put the spotlight on Wade, his company, and the complex world of financially-motivated dating. In the wake of the scandal, Eric Van Susteren of the Silicon Valley Business Journal spoke with Brandon Wade about the past, present, and future of his notorious website. Here are a few highlights of their conversation:

Van Susteren: How’d you get into this business?

Wade: I got into it because I was dateless, and I was shy and I was just completely awkward. My mother had always told me when I was growing up to channel all my sexual frustration into my books because when you get older and have money to be generous with, the girls will flock to you. When I graduated I was making six figures, and I still had that problem so I created this website because normal dating sites weren't working for me.

Van Susteren: How did your mother feel about being the inspiration of this business?

Wade: She loves it, and she thought it was funny that her advice would turn into a dating website eventually. People are going to want to criticize this any way they can but it's the same kind of advice mothers are giving daughters anyway. Telling them when you grow up you'll be treated like a princess by your knight in shining armor who's going to take care of you. How different is that? It's the same message: That you want to find a good, wealthy, successful husband or boyfriend who will take care of you.

Van Susteren: So how’s business?

Wade: Business has been doing better and better. We keep seeing growth and I don't think it's going to stop. We're moving away from the sugar daddy angle as well. It's still an important aspect of the site, but our marketing message is a more general now: “Relationship on your terms.”

Van Susteren: What’s the purpose of that move?

Wade: I think we sort of reached a plateau. When you look at relationships, not all people are really wealthy and successful, but they have specific conditions that they want in terms of what they want to find in a relationship. And that's what Seeking Arrangement is all about: It's about two people coming together, defining what want from each other, what they expect from each other, and creating a relationship based on that. It should be about anything — it shouldn't be just about sugar daddies.

For more information on this dating site you can read our review of Seeking Arrangement.

Judgment and dating go hand in hand. Even before online dating became so popular, singles would assess their dates based on a few traits they deemed important – like sense of humor, work ethic, kindness, or how hot they looked in a pair of jeans - to see whether or not they were worth a second date. But at least you could go on a first date knowing essentially nothing, hoping for the best. You had to deal with the element of surprise before you were allowed to judge.

Now, all of the mystery has been removed from dating. Dating websites like OkCupid allow you not only to see the profiles of potential dates and pick them apart, but you can also see ratings given by other people (that is, if you pay $10 for the premium service). If one of your matches gets two stars out of five, you’d be less likely to ask him/ her out. After all, aren’t we influenced by the opinions of others?

The more important question is: should we be so influenced, especially when it comes to meeting someone for the first time?

Dating apps like Lulu are focused solely on reviews. The app was intended to be a place where women could get feedback about potential dates before they decided to go out with them, kind of a girlfriend safety mechanism. But it is actually more like a Yelp for dating – where women rate guys according to their looks, how they behaved on a date, sense of humor, and other qualities. So if a guy receives a low score, women who check him out on Lulu would probably avoid dating him.

The problem with this rating system is two-fold. First, the numbers can be skewed. Sure, maybe the guy is a jerk and has twenty women who will agree with that assessment. Then his low rating makes sense, and other women would want to know before going out with him. However, if a guy only has a couple of reviews, and one of them is from a jilted ex, then it brings his overall score down. In fact, what’s to stop any woman from retaliation through Lulu’s rating system?

The second problem with Lulu’s system is that it disqualifies too many potential dates based on factors that might not be important to every woman. For instance, maybe a man’s sense of humor rates low because the women he’s been out with didn’t understand his quirky style. Does that mean you – his next potential date – shouldn’t go out with him? What if his sense of humor is exactly your type?

Rating systems serve a good purpose in dating as far as warning women of potentially bad dates. But if you base whether or not to take a chance on someone solely on a rating system, you are severely limiting your options. Because you never know who the right guy for you is until you actually meet him.